Global warming is epic, long-term study says

[pete311]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/08/world/world-climate-change/index.html?hpt=hp_t1


Global warming has propelled Earth's climate from one of its coldest decades since the last ice age to one of its hottest -- in just one century.
A heat spike like this has never happened before, at least not in the last 11,300 years, said climatologist Shaun Marcott, who worked on a new study on global temperatures going back that far.

[jimnyc]

Let me know when this is fully peer-reviewed and all sides agree. Otherwise, Shaun Marcott's resume is non-impressive, to say the least. A quick look at his website screams "amateur".

[logroller]

Let me know when this is fully peer-reviewed and all sides agree. Otherwise, Shaun Marcott's resume is non-impressive, to say the least. A quick look at his website screams "amateur".
Let me know when "all sides agree" on anything. I mean, I they're on different sides they, by defintion, don't agree. The report is published in the journal Science; which I believe means it has been peer reviewed.

[jimnyc]

Let me know when "all sides agree" on anything. I mean, I they're on different sides they, by defintion, don't agree. The report is published in the journal Science; which I believe means it has been peer reviewed.

Why would you think simply publishing a report means it was peer reviewed? There are tons and tons and tons of things being mentioned in the magazine, discussed and debated, that are not peer reviewed, simply them reporting like a lot of other journalists do.

Here's a summary, which to me looks exactly like the article published elsewhere. This is all I can find without being a subscriber. It also shows how it was "received for publication". I assure you, this means the author themselves submitted it for possible inclusion, which it was.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract?sid=28f495c4-c85b-4eaf-8825-26ef9ee4be17

[Robert A Whit]

Let me know when this is fully peer-reviewed and all sides agree. Otherwise, Shaun Marcott's resume is non-impressive, to say the least. A quick look at his website screams "amateur".

i still stand by the more recent report by Ph.D. Richard Lindzen who said we are in a period of cooling, not warming.

Do not confuse the warming in the USA with so called warming globally.

[jimnyc]

i still stand by the more recent report by Ph.D. Richard Lindzen who said we are in a period of cooling, not warming.

Do not confuse the warming in the USA with so called warming globally.

Quite honestly, I really don't believe any of these damn reports coming out as there are so many lies and agendas. The more that agree on a full scale study, the more I might believe. A lot of this will be based on cold hard facts that can't be very well disputed, hence both sides having no option but to agree. I haven't seen these facts proving global warming exists, and that it is man made. What I have seen in the changes is similar to what has happened since dinosaurs of dinosaurs existed. I've got nothing to make me believe anything other than normal changes at this point.

[Robert A Whit]

Quite honestly, I really don't believe any of these damn reports coming out as there are so many lies and agendas. The more that agree on a full scale study, the more I might believe. A lot of this will be based on cold hard facts that can't be very well disputed, hence both sides having no option but to agree. I haven't seen these facts proving global warming exists, and that it is man made. What I have seen in the changes is similar to what has happened since dinosaurs of dinosaurs existed. I've got nothing to make me believe anything other than normal changes at this point.

In that case, you agree with Professor Lindzen.

He is in my view one of the worlds best disciplined global climatologists. And he has many papers all peer reviewed to his credit. And he happens to actually study climate. Many other scientists do not study climate but perhaps study something in the two poles or polar bears or frogs. They do not have the knowledge to really tackle global climate as does professor Lindzen.

I used to communicate with Lindzen and he kindly sent me a lot of his papers.

[logroller]

Why would you think simply publishing a report means it was peer reviewed? There are tons and tons and tons of things being mentioned in the magazine, discussed and debated, that are not peer reviewed, simply them reporting like a lot of other journalists do.

Here's a summary, which to me looks exactly like the article published elsewhere. This is all I can find without being a subscriber. It also shows how it was "received for publication". I assure you, this means the author themselves submitted it for possible inclusion, which it was.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract?sid=28f495c4-c85b-4eaf-8825-26ef9ee4be17
Perhaps you don't understand the peer review process. It is submitted for publication, then identifying information is omitted and its sent to (usually) two recognized experts for review. Comments or conflicts are noted and sent back to the journal and its either rejected and sent back to the author or, if all is well, its accepted for publication. Hence the sixth month difference between submission and acceptance from the link you provided. Its true not all articles are peer reviewed, but it appears this one is. That being said, even if its peer reviewed, it could still be wrong; its just that the findings were the result of acceptable scientific and scholarly processes.

[MtnBiker]

Global warming has propelled Earth's climate from one of its coldest decades since the last ice age to one of its hottest -- in just one century.
A heat spike like this has never happened before, at least not in the last 11,300 years, said climatologist Shaun Marcott, who worked on a new study on global temperatures going back that far.

It is interesting to see fear mongerers contradict themselves in the same sentence.

Hmmmm, what percentage is 11,300 of 4,300,000,000??

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
(http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html)

[jimnyc]

Perhaps you don't understand the peer review process. It is submitted for publication, then identifying information is omitted and its sent to (usually) two recognized experts for review. Comments or conflicts are noted and sent back to the journal and its either rejected and sent back to the author or, if all is well, its accepted for publication. Hence the sixth month difference between submission and acceptance from the link you provided. Its true not all articles are peer reviewed, but it appears this one is. That being said, even if its peer reviewed, it could still be wrong; its just that the findings were the result of acceptable scientific and scholarly processes.

You're saying you believe this one was peer reviewed, solely on the basis the difference in date of submission to publication? Why wouldn't they add names of those who also verified the studies? Most publication would be thrilled to add that part to the equation. I see zero evidence to believe this is a peer reviewed study and only real evidence that it was a couple of college departments. Even the affiliations section only shows the 2 departments mentioned in the article.

If one knows how articles submission sites work, seeing a huge delay, even longer, is quite typical. This is also a way for sites to generate backlinks, but submitting articles and having them published. Every single one of these has huge delays as they get thousands upon thousands of submissions which need verification.

Also, I believe if it were a true peer reviewed study, it would be being flaunted as such all over the universe by now. I think at best, someone at the journal read the study elsewhere and published it in their magazine.

[aboutime]

You're saying you believe this one was peer reviewed, solely on the basis the difference in date of submission to publication? Why wouldn't they add names of those who also verified the studies? Most publication would be thrilled to add that part to the equation. I see zero evidence to believe this is a peer reviewed study and only real evidence that it was a couple of college departments. Even the affiliations section only shows the 2 departments mentioned in the article.

If one knows how articles submission sites work, seeing a huge delay, even longer, is quite typical. This is also a way for sites to generate backlinks, but submitting articles and having them published. Every single one of these has huge delays as they get thousands upon thousands of submissions which need verification.

Also, I believe if it were a true peer reviewed study, it would be being flaunted as such all over the universe by now. I think at best, someone at the journal read the study elsewhere and published it in their magazine.

Can anyone alive today prove the PEER Review is accurate if it was started 11 Thousand plus years ago????

Any Eyewitnesses, or records that date back that far???

Not difficult questions. Unless AL GORE is available to answer them.

[jimnyc]

It appears any peer reviewing at the journal is "anonymous" as well and not divulged. The peer review process I'm speaking of certainly divulges identities, as that's the point, seeing wording from known experts in the field validating or invalidating a study.

[logroller]

i still stand by the more recent report by Ph.D. Richard Lindzen who said we are in a period of cooling, not warming.

Do not confuse the warming in the USA with so called warming globally.
This month more recent? Lidzen is widely rejected by the scientific community. Even he has admitted that many of his findings were flawed; ie cirrus clouds positive feedback; Stating that he made some "stupid mistakes" in assessing satellite measurements in support of his iris theory. But hey, if it fits what you want to believe...


Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained “some stupid mistakes” in his handling of the satellite data. “It was just embarrassing,” he said in an interview. “The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque.”


Last year, he tried offering more evidence for his case, but after reviewers for a prestigious American journal criticized the paper, Dr. Lindzen published it in a little-known Korean journal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/science/earth/clouds-effect-on-climate-change-is-last-bastion-for-dissenters.html?pagewanted=3

[Robert A Whit]

This month more recent? Lidzen is widely rejected by the scientific community. Even he has admitted that many of his findings were flawed; ie cirrus clouds positive feedback; Stating that he made some "stupid mistakes" in assessing satellite measurements in support of his iris theory. But hey, if it fits what you want to believe...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/science/earth/clouds-effect-on-climate-change-is-last-bastion-for-dissenters.html?pagewanted=3

Actually, he is not rejected by the bulk of actual climate scientists.

You talk like a Democrat.

[DragonStryk72]

well, I'm not willing to hop wholly on board with either. six billion people will have an effect on the climate, yes, but you also have to look at the fact we've been going through a spike in solar activity the past few decades, and yeah, the sun is going to have an impact on the earth.
we should certainly do the best we can for our planet, but this idea that its only one or the other is just wrong. Quite likely, its somewhere between the two.

[cadet]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/08/world/world-climate-change/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Tell that to the foot of snow outside my house. During my spring break.

Also tell that to mister snowman, that my little brother made.

[cadet]

Tell that to the foot of snow outside my house. During my spring break.

Also tell that to mister snowman, that my little brother made.

Nevermind, the picture wont load for some reason.

[Anton Chigurh]

Imbeciles.

In the 1800s, they said if we would just move into the arid great plains and plow up the ground, we would transform it into a verdant, green paradise!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain_follows_the_plow

Then in 2000, they said snow, would be a thing of the past!

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

And just this week, one of the chief Goebbels Warming alarmists admits he was wrong:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134092/Gaia-scientist-James-Lovelock-I-alarmist-climate-change.html






When are you religious fanatics gonna get the fucking clue?

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/index.xhtml


Science is a weekly, peer-reviewed journal that publishes significant original scientific research, plus reviews and analyses of current research and science policy. We welcome submissions from all fields of science and from any source


Science is committed to speedy evaluation of manuscripts, and our record in this respect in recent years compares favorably with those of major competing publications. For most papers, reviewers are asked to return comments within two weeks; papers that call for particularly rapid assessment, owing to competition or other factors, can often be reviewed within 48 hours or less. Most papers are published within 14 weeks of initial submission. Through our online publish-before-print program, Science Express (http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/faq/index.xhtml#express_faq), we publish certain papers within ten days to two weeks of acceptance, and in some cases within two weeks of receipt.


However, the process itself can be suspect...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

Although generally considered essential to academic quality, and used in most important scientific publications, peer review has been criticized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Criticisms) as ineffective, slow, and misunderstood (also see anonymous peer review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_peer_review) and open peer review (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_peer_review)). Other critiques of the current peer review process from concerned scholars has stemmed from recent controversial studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy) published by the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard%E2%80%93Smithsonian_Center_for_Astrophysic s) and NASA.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#cite_note-14) These two published articles are now case studies of peer review failure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review_failure).


I do find it interesting that climate change enthusiasts seem only to recognize peer reviewed studies that bolster their claims, while simultaneously ignoring or outright dissing peer reviewed studies that contradict their claims.

[jimnyc]

Tell that to the foot of snow outside my house. During my spring break.

Also tell that to mister snowman, that my little brother made.

Didn't you get the memo? Global warming is the cause of warming, cold, snow, rain, earthquakes, tsunamis... And you may think I'm kidding, but look around! LOL The "climaters" will claim ANYTHING weather related as a result of global warming. It's comical at times.

[jimnyc]

However, the process itself can be suspect...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review



I do find it interesting that climate change enthusiasts seem only to recognize peer reviewed studies that bolster their claims, while simultaneously ignoring or outright dissing peer reviewed studies that contradict their claims.

Also, as to the Journals peer review process, read the link below. It doesn't sound very professional here, and it's anonymous. It's possible a review can be given to someone not qualified. It just doesn't really seem like your typical "peer review" where professionals in the same job are reviewing your work and going over the study. Suspect IMO.

http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/review.xhtml

Then look at the guys official page who lead this study. Another laugh:

http://www.proglacial.com/Proglacial/Home.html

Hell, he's probably 50x smarter than me, but sue me if I don't take this one small study, which reads more like a small page submitted to an article site, to be gospel.

[Kathianne]

Also, as to the Journals peer review process, read the link below. It doesn't sound very professional here, and it's anonymous. It's possible a review can be given to someone not qualified. It just doesn't really seem like your typical "peer review" where professionals in the same job are reviewing your work and going over the study. Suspect IMO.

http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/review.xhtml

Then look at the guys official page who lead this study. Another laugh:

http://www.proglacial.com/Proglacial/Home.html

Hell, he's probably 50x smarter than me, but sue me if I don't take this one small study, which reads more like a small page submitted to an article site, to be gospel.

Indeed, what many have been trying to bring to forefront for yeas. Always being overwhelmed by the greens.

[jimnyc]

Indeed, what many have been trying to bring to forefront for yeas. Always being overwhelmed by the greens.

I've always believed the peer process to be out in the view, not anonymous, otherwise anyone can backup another persons study. I've also always thought that these studies went to other professionals in the field, and their studies of the study published as backup of sorts. I don't believe anonymous people working on a website really count as "peers".

[Kathianne]

What is very sad in the instance of 'global climate change,' though most of those claiming 'peer review' would most rightly labeled 'global warming adherents.'

I really am clueless if in the beginning they meant well and believed in their cause. Over time, it became obviouse more was going on. Then came the emais, which really, really, put the chicken littles to shame.

Yet there are climate changes that seem to be real. Whether man has anything or not to do with the changes is really besides the point.

How do we deal with it?

Personally, I think we should strike where the iron is hot. Go with the change.

[Anton Chigurh]

I really am clueless if in the beginning they meant well and believed in their cause. Over time, it became obviouse more was going on. Then came the emais, which really, really, put the chicken littles to shame. The collapse of the USSR caused the Marxist faithful to need a new way to destroy capitalism, so they essentially invaded and took over environmentalism as a way to achieve the long held goal.